BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary

An episode of The Way We Were, dealing with New Zealand’s involvement in overseas conflicts, was shown on TV One on 13 January 1998, beginning at 8.00 pm. Part of the narration included the words, "the Brits let us down", in an aspect referring to the fall of Singapore and Japan’s expansion into the Pacific during World War II.

Mr Nichols complained to Television New Zealand Limited, the broadcaster, that the statement, which he had heard as "let down by the Brits in 1941", was factually untrue and inaccurate, and a gratuitous insult to a friendly country.

In declining to uphold the complaint, TVNZ claimed some historical justification for the statement. It referred to the views of a prominent historian, and to the widespread New Zealand view of the time, that Britain’s inability to defend New Zealand after the loss of Singapore, and its unwillingness to allow New Zealand servicemen to return from the European conflict, had led to the perception of having been "let down".

Dissatisfied with that decision, Mr Nichols referred the complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989.

For the reasons given below, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Decision

The members of the Authority have viewed a tape of the item complained about, and have read the correspondence (which is summarised in the Appendix). On this occasion, the Authority determines the complaint without a formal hearing.

A series entitled The Way We Were focused on various aspects of New Zealand’s recent past. The programme broadcast on TV One on 13 January at 8.00pm dealt with the war years and the evolving relationship between people in New Zealand and in Britain. Near the end of the programme, following a description of the Bikini Atoll nuclear bomb tests in 1946, the narrator stated:

But for most people in the 40s and 50s the bomb was far from terrible.

i)   The bomb was American and America was our friend who’d saved us from the Japanese when the Brits let us down.

ii)   And we needed good friends, reliable friends in the age of the cold war confrontations and freedom.

Mr Nichols complained to TVNZ that it was untrue and inaccurate to state, that New Zealand was "let down by the Brits in 1941". He considered it particularly regrettable since a large part of the audience probably knew very little about the history of World War II and may therefore have believed what they heard. He briefly summarised the events in the Atlantic and in Europe in 1941 which, he said, made it clear why Britain decided to "leave it to America to deal with the Japs." He sought a retraction and a public apology from the presenter. In his view, there was no justification for the statement, which he regarded as a blatant and unwarranted insult to his native country.

TVNZ assessed the complaint under standard G1 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice, which requires broadcasters:

G1 To be truthful and accurate on points of fact.

TVNZ suggested that Mr Nichols had misheard the line he quoted, for there was no reference to 1941. It suggested that therefore much of the comment in his letter of complaint was irrelevant.

TVNZ referred to works by leading New Zealand historians on the subject. It submitted that in the context of the surrender of Singapore, the site of a British naval base, and the threat posed by Japan’s expansion in the Pacific, Britain’s inability to maintain the defence of Australia and New Zealand had contributed to a perception that Britain had "let us down". In its view, the phrase accurately reflected the perception that many New Zealanders had on finding themselves defenceless and apparently threatened by Japan. In that context, it concluded, there was no breach of standard G1.

The Authority first examines the context in which the remarks were made. The historical facts, which do not seem to be in dispute, were that with the fall of Singapore, Australia and New Zealand were vulnerable and, realistically, unable to defend themselves against the military superiority of Japan. The war in the Pacific was subsequently won because of the strength of the American forces, and it was a fact that Britain did not participate in that area of the war. As to whether Britain "let us down", the Authority concludes that although it was an oversimplification of the situation, it was an interpretation which was expressed at the time.

Furthermore, in the series’ context, a nostalgic revisiting of New Zealand’s recent past, the Authority considers that the programme’s interpretation of events of the war was amenable to a subjective gloss, especially as it articulated a view which had currency at the time. In the context of the standards, the Authority concludes that standard G1 was not breached.

For the reasons set forth above, the Authority declines to uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Lyndsay Loates
Member
7 May 1998

Appendix

P J E Nichols’ Complaint to Television New Zealand Ltd – 18 February 1998

Mr Nichols of Kati Kati complained to Television New Zealand Limited that a remark by the narrator that New Zealand "was let down by the Brits in 1941", in The Way We Were on TV One on 13 January 1998, was untrue and inaccurate on points of fact. The remark had been made in the context of a programme dealing with New Zealand’s involvement in military conflicts, and its lessening role with Great Britain in such engagements since the Second World War.

Mr Nichols wrote that the statement was particularly regrettable because the programme probably had a large audience of people who knew little about World War Two, and who would have believed the statement. He also claimed that the statement was a "huge gratuitous insult" to a friendly country. He denied that the remark could have been seen as a statement of opinion.

The complainant set out the historical facts which prevented Great Britain from allowing or assisting New Zealand service personnel in Europe to return to New Zealand after the fall of Singapore to the Japanese in 1941. He questioned whether the programme was suggesting:

…that Britain should have sent a large navy and army to the East to defend two million New Zealanders from the slight possibility of being temporarily occupied and that its failure to do so can fairly be described as letting New Zealand down ? To have done so would have ensured that the Axis would win the war.

TVNZ’s Response to the Formal Complaint – 23 February 1998

TVNZ considered the complaint in the context of standard G1 of the Television Code of Broadcasting Practice.

It noted that the programme was:

…a nostalgic series which aims to show how New Zealanders saw themselves at various times in the recent past. The [particular programme] dealt with the war years, and the evolving relationship between people in New Zealand and those in the "mother country", Great Britain.

The broadcaster suggested that Mr Nichols might have misheard the statement about which he complained, because the programme did not contain a reference to 1941 in the context of his quotation. It referred to a segment of the programme, introduced shortly after the episode commenced, and quoted from the narration, in a description of the Bikini atoll nuclear bomb tests in 1946:

i)   But for most people in the 40s and 50s the bomb was far from terrible.

ii)  The bomb was American and America was our friend who’d saved us from the Japanese when the Brits let us down.

Noting that the programme was about the perceptions of New Zealanders living at a particular time, the broadcaster claimed that the phrase – "when the Brits let us down" – had some historical justification. It referred to the writings of the late Professor Keith Sinclair, a leading New Zealand historian, as describing the impact upon New Zealanders of the surrender to the Japanese of Britain’s base in Singapore, and the failure of the Americans and British to allocate shipping to allow New Zealand forces to return from Europe when New Zealand was threatened by Japan.

The phrase used, the broadcaster contended, accurately reflected the perception of many New Zealanders of the time, upon finding themselves defenceless and apparently threatened by Japan. In that context, the broadcaster did not consider the standard had been breached and it declined to uphold the complaint.

Mr Nichols’ Referral to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – 4 March 1998

Dissatisfied with TVNZ’s response, Mr Nichols referred his complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Authority under s.8(1)(a) of the Broadcasting Act 1989. He reiterated that he was "pretty certain" that he had heard the words of which he had complained towards the end of the programme.

He stated that the words he had heard had a profound and severe effect upon him. He disliked the use of the word "Brit", often, he wrote, used as a term of contempt, as it had been in the programme.

Referring to the broadcaster’s use of the writings of the late Professor Sinclair and the summaries drawn from them, Mr Nichols elaborated upon the scale of shipping losses which had been suffered by Britain, and to the need for New Zealand forces to remain in the northern hemisphere. The removal of New Zealand troops, he wrote, might have aided in an earlier fall of Russia and the loss of the war. He stressed that the embarkation home of the New Zealand expeditionary forces would have meant the loss of those troops to the European conflicts of the time, and the use of shipping and the supply of a large escort which Britain could not afford at the time.

To "let someone down", he wrote, involves a positive act of dereliction of some sort, a neglect of duty or malfeasance. He compared this to an act of assisting, of doing one’s best but being defeated. The latter, he claimed, represented the case of Britain after Singapore:

…she did her best but was defeated. To suggest that Britain guaranteed the integrity of NZ in all circumstances is unrealistic.

The complainant also took issue with the narration in the programme which had used words:

… to the effect that never again would young New Zealanders be prepared to fight for king and country. For the country perhaps, but not for the king. If by this he meant the person of the king I thoroughly agree.

But "King and Country" does not mean the person of the king. It means the king as a corporation sole, much the same as "the Crown" or in a republic "the people". It is in fact tautological, for the king is the country.

Mr Nichols claimed that the narrator of the programme, in using the phrase the subject of the complaint had delivered the coup de grace to the relationship which had existed between New Zealand and the United Kingdom to the countries’ mutual benefit. He wrote that he was unable to understand why he had done so, that he was distressed by it and considered that a retraction and public apology should be made. In doing so, he referred to the social, economic and trading consequences for both countries of a cessation of their relationship.

TVNZ’s Response to the Authority – 13 March 1998

TVNZ admitted to some perplexity in locating the source of Mr Nichols’ complaint. It had initially responded to his complaint on the basis of a phrase which had been used close to the commencement of the programme. In his complaint to the Authority, Mr Nichols had indicated that the words were used near to the end of the programme. The broadcaster quoted from the transcript of the closing section of the programme which did not contain any reference to "Brits" or to 1941.

It wrote that if the sentences which it had quoted in its letter to Mr Nichols of 23 February were not those to which he objected:

…then we must confess to being unable to identify what it was that caused his concerns.

In referring to the complainant’s references to the King, raised in his referral to the Authority but not in his original complaint to the broadcaster, TVNZ stated that it believed that the comments in the narration of the programme were fair, and a logical consequence of the series of events which had been traced through in the programme.

Mr Nichols’ Final Comment – 24 March 1998

Mr Nichols wrote that he accepted that the words about which he complained were spoken at the beginning of the programme, not at the end. However, he stated, it did not matter whether the words were spoken at the beginning or end of the programme. The words were said, and they were insulting and completely untrue.

He reiterated that to "let down" meant a positive act of dereliction, to abandon or forsake. The same result, he wrote, could have been achieved by referring to Britain’s inability to defend New Zealand, or even by her failure to do so, without using insulting language.

The effect of the language used, he claimed, was that a large number of New Zealanders, who would have heard the narration and believed that the narrator knew what he was talking about, and was truthful, would go through life under the impression that Britain had let them down.

He repeated his concerns about the effect of the comments on the economic and trading relations between Britain and New Zealand.